`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00734
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESUBMISSION OF THE DECLARATION OF BRANIMIR VOJCIC, D.SC., IN
`SUPPORT OF UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS’ PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF BRANIMIR VOJCIC, D.SC., IN SUPPORT OF
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS’ PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Branimir Vojcic, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
`States, declare that the following is true and correct based on the best of my ability.
`
`
`
`Date: 21 April 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signed:
`
`
`
`______________________
`Branimir Vojcic, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by DiMuro Ginsberg, P.C., as an independent
`
`technical expert in the Inter Partes Review between UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`(“UNM”), and Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”), PTAB Case No. IPR2021-
`
`00375 involving U.S. Patent No. 8,265,096 (“the ’096 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work as a technical expert at my customary
`
`rate of $675 per hour. My compensation does not in any way depend on the outcome
`
`of this review, and I have no personal interest in the outcome of this review.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I am an expert in wireless technology and other telecommunications areas.
`
`I am an Emeritus Professor of Engineering and Applied Science at The George
`
`Washington University, where I have been a member of the faculty since September
`
`1991. In addition, I have served as a consultant for a number of companies in the
`
`wireless communications industry in various technology areas. I have also served
`
`on numerous committees and as a reviewer and editor for several journals,
`
`conferences, and organizations.
`
`4.
`
`I received my Diploma of Engineering, Master of Science, and Doctor of
`
`Science degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of Belgrade in
`
`Yugoslavia in 1981, 1986, and 1989, respectively. The primary focus of my Doctor
`
`of Science studies was on Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and spread
`
`spectrum communications technologies.
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`5.
`
`In 1991, I joined The George Washington University as an Assistant
`
`Professor and was promoted to Associate Professor and Professor in 1997 and 2000,
`
`respectively. From 2001 to 2004, I served as Chairman of the Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering Department at The George Washington University and
`
`retired in 2015. During my tenure at The George Washington University, I have
`
`taught many different courses on communications theory and networks, wireless
`
`communications, CDMA, and I have been a course director for a number of courses
`
`in communications. I have supervised students mostly in the areas of wireless
`
`communications
`
`and
`
`CDMA
`
`(including
`
`IS-95,
`
`CDMA2000,
`
`WCDMA/HSDPA/HSUPA) and OFDM/LTE and have been a thesis director for a
`
`number of Doctor of Science candidates, who now have successful careers in
`
`academia, industry, and government.
`
`6. My research in the areas I just mentioned has been supported by the
`
`communications industry and various government agencies, such as the Advanced
`
`Research Project Agency (ARPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the
`
`National Security Agency (NSA). Much of this research concerns communications
`
`theory, performance evaluation, modeling of wireless networks, multi-user
`
`detection, adaptive antenna arrays, and ad-hoc networks.
`
`7.
`
`I have authored and co-authored a number of journal and conference
`
`papers, contributed to various books, and co-authored a textbook on CDMA, entitled
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`The CDMA2000 System for Mobile Communications, Prentice Hall, 2004. I have
`
`also served as a co-editor of a book on wireless communications, entitled
`
`Multiaccess, Mobility, and Teletraffic in Wireless Communications, Volume III,
`
`Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts, 1998. My CV includes a
`
`detailed listing of my publications. See Attachment A.
`
`8.
`
`I have also received awards for my work. For example, in 1995, I received
`
`the prestigious National Science Foundation Faculty Early CAREER Development
`
`Award. The award is given annually by the NSF to a select number of young
`
`professors nationwide to promote excellence in teaching and research.
`
`9.
`
`I have served as a consultant for numerous companies in the wireless
`
`communications industry in technology areas, including the areas of 2G/3G/4G
`
`mobile technologies, Wireless LANs, new generation broadcast systems, advanced
`
`mobile satellite systems and other aspects of modern communication systems. I
`
`have also taught academic courses as well as short courses for the industry and
`
`government on various aspects of communications in the areas of 2G, 2.5G, 3G, and
`
`4G cellular standards, such as CDMA2000 1xRTT, CDMA2000 Evolution Data
`
`Optimized (EVDO), Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA), and
`
`LTE.
`
`10.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the IEEE and was an Associate Editor for IEEE
`
`Communications Letters and the Journal on Communications and Networks. I have
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`served as a member of technical program committees, as a session organizer for
`
`many technical conferences and workshops, and as a reviewer of technical papers
`
`for many journals and conferences.
`
`11.
`
`I am a co-inventor on about 20 patents; some representative examples
`
`include: U.S. Patent No. 6,523,147, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Forward
`
`Error Correction Coding for an AM In-Band On-Channel Digital Audio
`
`Broadcasting System,” U.S. Patent No. 8,595,590 B1, entitled “Systems and
`
`Methods for Encoding and Decoding Check-Irregular Non-Systematic IRA Codes,”
`
`and applications including “Joint Source-Channel Decoding with Source Sequence
`
`Augmentation,” U.S. 20140153654 A1, June 5, 2014, “Systems and Methods for
`
`Advanced Iterative Decoding and Channel Estimation of Concatenated Coding
`
`Systems,” U.S. 20140153625 A1, June 5, 2014, “Advanced Decoding of
`
`High/Medium/Low Density Parity Check Codes,” PCT/US13/72883, and
`
`International Application Number PCT/CA01/01488, entitled “Multi-User Detector
`
`For Direct Sequence - Code Division Multiple Access (DS/CDMA) Channels.”
`
`12. Over the last several years, I have evaluated many, on the order of
`
`hundreds, of patents that are essential or potentially essential to wireless standards
`
`for various clients. These evaluations typically include, for example, analyzing
`
`whether the patent claims read on the relevant standard, considering the importance
`
`of the technological inventions claimed, analyzing how such claimed inventions
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`compare to other similar patents in the field, searching for and reviewing potential
`
`prior art, reviewing and analyzing the prosecution histories of patents relevant to
`
`potential claim construction, infringement, or related issues, reviewing and
`
`analyzing the working group documents related to the relevant standard in relation
`
`to the claimed invention, and considering whether there are available alternatives to
`
`the claimed inventions.
`
`13. A copy of my CV is attached as Attachment A.
`
`II. BASES OF OPINIONS
`
`14. The basis and reasoning of my opinions include my education, training,
`
`and experience as an engineer, including my decades of experience in
`
`telecommunications. In the course of conducting my analysis and forming my
`
`opinions, I have considered the materials listed below:
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 8,265,096 to Yan-Xiu Zheng, et al., filed July 7, 2008
`
`and issued on Sep. 11, 2012 and its file history;
`
`b. Qualcomm’s Petition for Inter Partes Review, PTAB Case No.
`
`IPR2021-00375, and all its relevant technical exhibits;
`
`c. Declaration of Dr. Sumit Roy (“Roy”) supporting Qualcomm’s
`
`petition;
`
`d. U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0067377 A1 (“Talukdar”);
`
`e. U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0155387 A1 (“Li”);
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`f. U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0104174 A1 (“Nystrom”);
`
`g. Certain materials from STC.UNM v. Apple Inc., No. 1-20-cv-00351
`
`(W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2020), including the Claim Construction Order,
`
`ECF No. 69;
`
`h. and any other materials referenced herein.
`
`15. My opinions in this declaration are based on the understanding of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the claims in the ’096 patent.
`
`16.
`
`In assessing the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, I have
`
`considered the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior solutions to those
`
`problems found in the prior art references, the rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made, the sophistication of the technology, the level of education of active workers
`
`in the field, and my own experience working with those of skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`17. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the filing
`
`of the ’096 patent would typically have at least a MS Degree in Computer
`
`Engineering or Electrical Engineering, or equivalent work experience, along with at
`
`least 1 year of experience related specifically to wireless communications, including
`
`MIMO and OFDM.
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I am very familiar with this level of skill. In the course of my decades of
`
`experience, I have supervised and worked with engineers in this field having at least
`
`the level of skill identified above.
`
`III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning, that is, the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a claim term that does not use the word “means” is
`
`presumed not to be a means-plus-function term. I understand that a term that does
`
`not use the word “means” would be construed as a means-plus-function term if it
`
`does not describe structure to a POSITA. Conversely, I understand that if a term
`
`describes structure to a POSITA, it is not a means-plus-function term.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a patent has several components, including an abstract,
`
`drawings, a written description detailing different embodiments of the invention
`
`(i.e., the specification), and numbered claims at the end of the patent. It is the
`
`numbered claims that define metes and bounds of the properties that the patentee has
`
`the right to exclude other from infringing.
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Validity
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent, once issued or granted, is entitled to a
`
`presumption of validity. However, this presumption can be overcome by clear and
`
`convincing evidence to the contrary. Validity is routinely challenged post-issuance,
`
`and courts often invalidate the patent, on the ground that the patent fails to meet one
`
`or more statutory requirements, e.g., by claiming a non-patentable subject matter,
`
`such as an abstract idea, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 101; by being not novel and
`
`anticipated by prior art under § 102; by being obvious in view of prior art under §
`
`103; and/or lacking sufficient disclosures or being indefinite, in violation of § 112.
`
`1.
`
`Anticipation
`
`23.
`
`I understand that section 102 first defines “prior art” that would anticipate
`
`and, thus, invalidate the patent. The term “prior art” is a patent term of art for the
`
`technology that was known or used before the priority date of the patent, which is
`
`typically the filing date of the patent application. However, I understand that, to the
`
`extent a provisional patent application properly discloses and supports the claimed
`
`subject matter, the priority date of the claims is the filing date of the provisional
`
`application, which is considered the invention date. Thus, if the subject matter of
`
`the invention was already patented or described in a printed publication anywhere in
`
`the world before the invention claimed in the patent, such prior art would invalidate
`
`the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (pre-AIA).
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`24. Anticipation is a technical defense. A patent claim is anticipated and
`
`therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. §102, only if: a single prior art reference discloses,
`
`either expressly or inherently, each and every element of the claimed invention
`
`arranged exactly as they are arranged in the claim. If even a single element or step
`
`recited by the claim is not disclosed in exactly the same way, arranged as in the
`
`claim, there is no anticipation. In addition, the reference must enable one of skill in
`
`the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue
`
`experimentation.
`
`25. For an element to be present in a reference through inherency, the evidence
`
`must be clear and convincing that the missing element is necessarily present in the
`
`thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of
`
`ordinary skill. That means that inherency cannot be established by probabilities or
`
`possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
`
`circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that
`
`the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the
`
`performance of the questioned function, that disclosure could be inherent.
`
`2.
`
`Obviousness
`
`26.
`
`I understand that section 103 is broader than § 102 in a sense that § 103
`
`forbids issuance of a patent even if “the invention is not identically disclosed or
`
`described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`(pre-AIA).
`
`27.
`
`I understand that to measure obviousness under § 103, a court determines
`
`“the scope and content of the prior art,” ascertains “differences between the prior art
`
`and the claims at issue,” and resolves “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.”
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). Secondary considerations such
`
`as “commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others . . . might be
`
`utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter
`
`sought to be patented.” Id. at 17-18; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 415 (2007) (“Graham set forth a broad inquiry and invited courts, where
`
`appropriate, to look at any secondary considerations that would prove instructive.”).
`
`28.
`
`It is my understanding that the information that is used to evaluate whether
`
`an invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art.” Prior art
`
`generally includes U.S. and foreign patents and U.S. and foreign printed publications
`
`(e.g., published patent applications (before issued as a patent), books, journal
`
`publications, presentation files, posters, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.)
`
`that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”) of the claims
`
`in the patent. A patent will be prior art if it was filed before the effective filing date
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`of the claimed invention, while a printed publication will be prior art if it was
`
`publicly available before that date.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, in addition to the patents and printed publications, a
`
`product used in public or on sale in the U.S. more than one year prior to the effective
`
`filing date of a patent can be prior art to that patent. I understand that a product is
`
`considered “on sale” when (i) the product embodying the invention is offered for
`
`commercial sale, and (ii) the invention was ready for patenting. An invention is
`
`shown to be “ready for patenting” when there is proof of a reduction to practice or
`
`proof that prior to the critical date the inventor had prepared drawings or other
`
`descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled
`
`in the art to practice the invention.
`
`30.
`
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the
`
`time the invention was made.
`
`31.
`
`It is my understanding that the following standards govern the
`
`determination of whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these
`
`standards in my evaluation.
`
`32.
`
`It is my understanding that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must
`
`make certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art. Specifically,
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`the obviousness question requires consideration of four factors (although not
`
`necessarily in the following order):
`
`a. the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`b. the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`c. the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`d. whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`
`may be present in any particular case.
`
`33.
`
`It is my understanding that the obviousness inquiry should not be done in
`
`hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim. The prohibition against
`
`using hindsight applies to both the invention and the identification of the problem
`
`that the invention solves.
`
`34.
`
`It is my understanding that the obviousness inquiry may also consider
`
`certain objective indicia of non-obviousness. Such objective factors indicating
`
`obviousness or non-obviousness may include: commercial success of products
`
`covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by
`
`others to make the invention; copying of the invention by others in the field;
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the infringer
`
`or others in the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`of surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and
`
`the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`35.
`
`It is my understanding that the fact finder must determine whether potential
`
`evidence of secondary considerations is relevant. With respect to evidence offered
`
`for each secondary consideration, the fact finders must ascertain whether there is a
`
`nexus between the claimed invention and the evidence establishing the secondary
`
`consideration (commercial success, industry praise, etc.) and determine the
`
`probative value of secondary-considerations evidence for rebutting a prima facie
`
`case of obviousness.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis requires a comparison of the
`
`properly construed claim language to the prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`Obviousness relies on an expansive and flexible approach using common sense.
`
`Patents may not claim nothing more than combinations of known elements driven
`
`by non-innovative factors such as market demands. Only if a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art can implement the claimed invention as a predictable variation of a
`
`known invention without undue experimentation, it is obvious. Also, “hindsight”
`
`reconstruction cannot be used to combine references together to reach a conclusion
`
`of obviousness.
`
`37.
`
`It is my understanding that exemplary rationales that may support a
`
`conclusion of obviousness include:
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`a. combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`b. simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`c. use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`d. applying a known technique to a known device (method or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`e. “obvious to try,” i.e., choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`f. known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`
`or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`g. some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`38. Thus, when considering a prior art reference for purposes of an
`
`obviousness analysis, the reference must be taken for everything it teaches.
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`39.
`
`I understand that a claim might be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the knowledge of
`
`one skilled in the art, including the common sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`40. An obviousness evaluation can also be based on a combination of multiple
`
`prior art references. The prior art references themselves may provide a suggestion,
`
`motivation, or reason to combine, but other times the nexus linking two or more
`
`prior art references is simple common sense. I further understand that an
`
`obviousness analysis recognizes that market demand, rather than scientific literature,
`
`often drives innovation, and that a motivation to combine references may be supplied
`
`by the direction of the marketplace.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that practical and common-sense considerations should guide
`
`a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have obvious uses beyond
`
`their primary purposes. A person of ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a
`
`problem will often be able to fit the teachings of multiple publications together like
`
`pieces of a puzzle. An obviousness analysis, therefore, takes into account the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ
`
`under the circumstances.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious merely
`
`by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when there is
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
`
`the known options within his or her technical grasp because the result is likely the
`
`product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense which led to a
`
`reasonable expectation of success.
`
`43.
`
`It is my understanding that the combination of familiar elements according
`
`to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
`
`other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different
`
`one.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each
`
`performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect from such an arrangement,
`
`the combination is obvious. A proper obviousness analysis focuses on what was
`
`known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not just the patentee.
`
`Accordingly, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
`
`elements in the manner claimed.
`
`45.
`
`In sum, it is my understanding that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the understanding and
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the
`
`inventor, would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in the
`
`claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references, or any need or problem known
`
`in the relevant field at the time of the invention, can provide a reason for combining
`
`the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed manner. But, as stated
`
`previously, I understand that “hindsight” reconstruction cannot be used to combine
`
`references together to reach a conclusion of obviousness.
`
`IV. THE ’096 PATENT (EX1001]
`
`A.
`
`Technical Background
`
`46. The invention of the ’096 patent relates to methods for constructing frame
`
`structures in orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) systems.
`
`EX1001, 1:16-19. “Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) is
`
`a multiple access scheme for transmitting data in different subcarriers in a channel,
`
`wherein the data may come from different users and may be transmitted in disjoint
`
`subsets of sub-channels in a transmission bandwidth.” Id, 1:22-24.
`
`47. The ’096 patent first describes the prior art. Id., Figs 1 (illustrating an
`
`OFDMA frame structure under the IEEE 802.16 standard) and 2 (illustrating a
`
`placement of guiding signals (or pilot symbols) 24-1 for time-domain and frequency
`
`-domain OFDMA signals under the IEEE 802.16 standard).
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`48.
`
`“Referring to FIG. 2, upper and lower frequency bands may serve as guard
`
`bands 22-1 and 22-2, respectively, which may not be used to carry information.” Id.
`
`1:61-63. “The placement of information may include a first part and a second part.
`
`For example, the first part of the placement includes a preamble 10'-1 having a fixed
`
`length, and the second part of the placement includes data and guard intervals
`
`between an upper row and a lower row of the data interlaced with the pilot symbols
`
`24-1, represented by blocks marked with ‘X’.” Id., 1:63-2:2.
`
`49. Then, ’096 patent illustrates problems faced by the prior art, including that:
`
`“[i]n some applications such placement of information may be inflexible to
`
`bandwidth scaling due to the fixed-length preambles 10'-1 and/or 10'-2 and the often
`
`unusable guard bands 22-1 and 22-2. Moreover, the placement may be susceptible
`
`to a Doppler effect in a high mobility scenario because the placement may be usually
`
`designed with a relatively large symbol period, which in tum may induce relatively
`
`short carrier spacing and less dense pilot symbol placement. Moreover, the limitation
`
`on pilot symbol placement may cause channel estimation error at a receiving end
`
`because of insufficient information provided for channel estimation.” Id., 2:2-14.
`
`50. The invention of the ’096 patent directly addresses these problems. For
`
`example, the ’096 patent discloses “a method for constructing a frame structure for
`
`data transmission, the method comprising generating a first section comprising data
`
`configured in a first format compatible with a first communication system,
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`generating a second section following the first section comprising data configured
`
`in a second format compatible with a second communication system, wherein the
`
`second format is different from the first format, generating at least one non-data
`
`section containing information describing an aspect of data in at least one of the first
`
`section and the second section, and combining the first section, the second section
`
`and the at least one non-data section to form the frame structure.” Id., at 2:18-30.
`
`The patent further details other examples of its invention. Id., 2:31-54, 2:55-67, 3:1-
`
`13, and 3:14-32.
`
`51. The invention of the ’096 patent enables “data of an old orthogonal
`
`frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) system (hereinafter a legacy system)
`
`and data of a new OFDMA system to co-exist in an OFDMA frame by changing a
`
`frame structure of the OFDMA frame.” Id., 4:21-25. The new system has the
`
`advantages of allowing larger bandwidth, higher mobility, and may use updated
`
`transmission technology while maintaining backward compatibility. Id., 4:26-30.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 1
`
`1. A method of constructing a frame structure for data transmission, the
`method comprising:
`
`a. generating a first section comprising data configured in a first format
`compatible with a first communication system using symbols;
`
`b. generating a second section following the first section, the second section
`comprising data configured in a second format compatible with a second
`communication system using symbols, wherein the first communication
`system's symbols and the second communication system's symbols co-exist
`in one transmission scheme and wherein:
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`c. the second format is compatible with the second communication
`system configured to support higher mobility than the first
`communication system, wherein each symbol in the second
`communication system has a shorter symbol period than that in the
`first communication system;
`
`d. generating at least one non-data section containing information describing
`an aspect of data in at least one of the first section and the second section;
`and
`
`e. combining the first section, the second section and the at least one non-
`data section to form the frame structure.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 2
`
`2. The method of claim 1, wherein the non-data section comprises mapping
`information for at least one of the first section and the second section.
`
`D. Claim 3
`
`3. The method of claim 1, wherein the non-data section comprises at least
`one of a preamble, a frame control header 60 (FCH), a burst, and a map of at
`least one of the first section and the second section.
`
`E.
`
`Claim 4
`
`4. The method of claim 3, wherein the second section follows the first
`section in at least one of time sequence and frequency spectrum.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 6
`
`6. The method of claim 1, wherein each of the first section and the second
`section carries at least one of uplink and downlink data.
`
`G. Claim 7
`
`7. The method of claim 1, wherein the second section carries mapping
`information for data in the second section.
`
`H. Claim 8
`
`8. A method of constructing a frame structure for data transmission, the
`method comprising:
`
`Ex. 2004, IPR2021-00734
`XyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`
`
`a. generating a first section comprising data configured in a first format
`compatible with a first communication system using symbols;
`
`b. generating a second section following the first section, the second section
`comprising data configured in a second format compatible with a second
`communication system using symbols, wherein the first communication
`system's symbols and the second communication system’s symbols co-exist
`in one transmission scheme and wh
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
